SUMMARY OF
STAGECOACH (HOLDINGS) LTD AND FORMIA LTD: A REPORT ON THE ACQUISITION
BY STAGECOACH (HOLDINGS) LTD OF FORMIA LTD
On 29 May 1990, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
asked us (see Appendix 1.1) to investigate and report on the
acquisition by Stagecoach (Holdings) Ltd (Stagecoach) of Formia
Ltd (Formia).
In order to establish whether a merger situation qualifying for investigation
exists, we are required to determine whether, following the merger, Stagecoach
supplies over 25 per cent of local bus services in a substantial part
of the United Kingdom. In our view, the area specified in the terms of
reference 1 (the county of East Sussex,
the county of West Sussex other than Crawley, and the districts of Ashford,
Shepway and Tunbridge Wells in the county of Kent) represents a substantial
part of the United Kingdom. Following the merger, Stagecoach supplies
over 25 per cent of registered bus miles in the reference area.
Southdown Motor Services Ltd (Southdown), which was acquired by Stagecoach
in August 1989, is the main operator of bus services in the reference
area. Until 1987, it had not operated bus services to any extent in the
Hastings, Rother, Shepway or Ashford parts of the reference area. From
1987 until recently, however, it participated with Eastbourne Buses Ltd
(EB) in a joint company, Hastings Topline Buses Ltd (Topline), which
operated services mainly in Hastings and Rother in competition with Hastings
and District Transport Ltd (H&D). Southdown took full control of
Topline in September 1989. Formia was the holding company for H&D
which was still, at the time of the merger, the main operator of bus
services in Hastings and Rother. During 1989, H&D established services
in Eastbourne, in competition with Southdown and EB in that town.
Competition in Hastings and Eastbourne had been to the benefit of passengers
in both frequency of services and fares, but Topline had been operating
at a significant loss, and H&D's financial performance had also been
poor. The effect of the merger, however, was virtually to eliminate competition
on many commercial services in Hastings and Rother. Following the merger
there has also been little competition for contract services in Hastings
or Bexhill.
There are no other major operators located close to Hastings or Bexhill,
which are surrounded by rural areas with few commercial services. In
the circumstances of this case, we do not believe that competition from
other operators or potential competition from new entrants would be sufficient
to offset the loss of competition in the Hastings or Bexhill areas, but
there would remain a degree of competition between Southdown and EB in
Eastbourne. In our view the creation of a dominant position in Hastings
and Bexhill removes a main constraint on the fares and tender prices
that can be charged, and the main stimulus to efficiency and to the improvement
of services, and may be expected to lead to higher fares and tender prices
and to lower standards, quality and frequency of service and less choice.
We are also concerned that the strengthening of Stagecoach's position
could weaken other operators, and that Stagecoach could, by future acquisitions,
increase its dominance further. We have therefore concluded that the
merger may be expected to operate against the public interest.
We believe, however, that it would not be appropriate to recommend the
divestment of H&D from Stagecoach. Divestment is likely to mean that
in this limited area the existing dominant supplier merely gives way
to another, and would also risk disruption of services and inconvenience
to passengers while the change is being effected. We have therefore recommended
a number of measures to improve local accountability, to prevent short-term
retaliation against new entrants, to notify further acquisitions, and
to limit the cost of tenders. We believe that these measures would be
more effective than divestment in remedying the adverse effects of the
merger.
1 A map of
the reference area is set out in Appendix 1.2
Back
To The Top
Last Revised: June 1999
|